With the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, some people argued that it would be the death of the institution of marriage. But the reality is that there have been significant changes in the understanding of marriage over the past few decades that have already changed the way couples and families live.

Marriage is not what it used to be. Just 50 years ago, couples said, "till death do us part," and they meant it. Now, couples are writing their own vows and promising to stay together "as long as we both shall love." Or worse, they are choosing to live together and consider buying a house together as a major commitment, as though a mortgage covenant were equivalent to a marriage covenant.

What is happening to marriage? It seems that the time-honoured institution, rich with history, tradition and commitment has been exchanged for a mere shadow. It is as though the Japanese tea ritual were replaced with instant coffee in a paper cup.

Many people falsely believe marriage is just a "piece of paper" that has no real meaning. They believe that whether or not a couple gets married has no impact on their commitment to one another.

But statistics paint a much different picture. Statistics Canada conducted a study of children, and the results are stark. Of children born to parents in a common-law union (that is, parents living together without being married) more than 63 percent have experienced family breakdown by the age of 10. However, only 13.6 percent of children born to parents in a traditional marriage where they did not live together before marriage have experienced family breakdown. Also, about one-quarter of children of couples who lived together before marriage experienced family breakdown by age 10. The study, published in 1995, shows a dramatic rise in common-law unions.

The results of family breakdown on children are significant. Single parent families are more likely to live in poverty. In the recent spate of violence amongst black teenage boys in Toronto, community leaders identified the problem as being that the boys had no fathers who were involved in their lives. And children are more likely to experience depression and addictions after family breakdown.

The Statistics Canada study introduced above opens with these words: "More than 30 years ago, at a time when today's mothers and fathers were themselves just teething, children came into the world in the embrace of both of their parents. These parents had married before God and the state and had promised to stay together, for better or for worse, until the death of one decided otherwise."

It is amazing to see a government agency recognize the importance of the promise before God as well as the state. Christians have long recognized that marriage is a covenant before God. A covenant is, of course, a sacred promise. It is more than a contract because it cannot be broken. And the significance of making this promise before God is two-fold. First, it gives God an important role in nurturing the marriage. And secondly, it makes the husband and wife accountable to God for sustaining their marriage.

For his part, God is the author of marriage. He gave marriage as an institution to Adam and Eve. And the biblical account shows that God created man and woman in such as way as to bring about a unity between man and woman through marriage. As the traditional admonishment states: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

And God also calls on Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply." Traditionally, Christians have understood this to be an encouragment for married couples to have children. One of the purposes of marriage, in addition to companionship and shared work, is therefore to raise children.

The majority of Canadians get married in a church, or at least in a religious ceremony. Fully 75 percent of marriages are solemnized by clergy. Canadian couples want to be married before God. Even if they do not understand fully the meaning of the covenant of marriage, there is something about the solemnity of a promise before God in the presence of witnesses that couples deeply desire. Our beings cry out for the unity with another that Adam identifies when he first meets Eve.

At the time of Confederation in 1867, marriage was defined as "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." This definition was found in a legal case from Britain called Hyde v. Hyde, decided in 1866. This definition became the law of Canada when we gained our independence. The definition was never written in legislation because it was so commonly understood and accepted.

Over the last few decades, marriage as defined by the state has been eroded. No-fault divorce, recognition of common law relationships and now the redefinition of marriage have all had a dramatic effect on the societal understanding of marriage. The bottom line is that it is an institution in crisis! Each time there has been a change, experts have said that it would not have a negative impact on the institution of marriage. But that has not been the case.

The first major change was to allow no-fault divorce. This clearly changes the "for life" part of the definition of marriage. Prior to the change, divorce was only available in cases of abuse or marital unfaithfulness. No-fault divorce allowed couples to divorce after living separate and apart for one year. This was meant to get rid of the blame game. Yet those who have experienced no-fault divorce say the only ones to benefit are those who were at fault. In effect, it seems to reward marital unfaithfulness by letting the adulterer get out of the marriage with few responsibilities.

The second major change was the recognition of legal rights and responsibilities for those who live together without being legally married, living common-law. Up until a legal case in 1980, common-law spouses had no legal protection whatsoever. If the relationship broke down, each person walked away with whatever possessions were in his or her name. In the case of Petkus v. Becker, Miss Becker had lived with Mr. Petkus for years and put all her savings into the bee-keeping operation they ran. But it was in his name. When the relationship ended, Miss Becker had nothing. The court ultimately granted Miss Becker a financial settlement for her sweat equity in the business. It was the first step in legal recognition of rights for those who live common-law.

Some have referred to living together without being married as "marriage lite." The commitment is less, the formalities fewer. What many do not realize is that the legal obligations are also less. And the legal protections are fewer. While the laws have gradually been changing, married and common-law spouses are still not treated the same in law. For example, if a marriage breaks down, there are spousal support obligations (traditionally known as alimony). If a common-law couple splits up, there is no obligation for support. This means that if a woman gives up her job to take care of children, the father has no obligation to provide financial support for her if they are not married.

Both parents have an obligation to pay child support, whether the parents are married, living common-law, or have never lived together. The courts are increasingly finding obligations to pay child support even for people who have been in a parental role and are not the biological parents. In a recent rather strange twist, a man was required to pay child support for a child his wife had with another man, even when she left him and married the biological father.

The recent redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples creates a whole new set of issues and potential problems. First, it solidifies the notion that marriage is about romantic love between two people. This takes us back to the new "as long as we both shall love" attitude towards marriage. This ignores children, who are no longer seen as an integral part of marriage.

Second, it requires all kinds of changes to the way people think and talk about marriage. The recent "marriage" (it is actually a civil union in Britain) of Sir Elton John to his gay partner raised the huge issue of what his partner should be called. Elton John is knighted. Usually, the wife of a knight is "Lady so-and-so". But Sir Elton John is married to David Furnish. He can't be "Lady David." This seems insignificant but it shows that our very language will need to be altered to accommodate the new realities.

Here in Canada, we have already seen spin-off cases asking for divorce laws to be read differently. Even when the courts changed the definition of marriage, our divorce laws only recognized marriage as being between a husband and wife, so it was not clear how a same-sex couple could divorce. Marriage licences and certificates all had to reprinted. The forms read "husband" and "wife" and were changed to "spouse" and "spouse" or worse, "applicant" and "applicant." Again, these seem like small matters but they reveal an underlying shift in our understanding of marriage.

Some schools and school boards, namely Toronto and Vancouver and environs, were already in the process of removing what is called the "heterosexist bias" in the schools. This is now being accelerated and widened. Teachers are told that they cannot teach children that marriage is the preferable family form. They cannot teach about male/female relationships without also dealing with same-sex relationships. Similarly, students cannot be exempted from classes where this new orthodoxy is being taught. Despite the fact that both teaching and being taught this curriculum may offend religious beliefs, it is not considered religious so there is no exemption possible.

The impact of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples likely will not be felt for a generation. That is how long it took for the children of divorce to start contemplating marriage and finding commitment difficult. When divorce laws were first loosened in 1968, academics said it would be better for children to have their parents separate than to have them fighting. But the children of divorce often have significant difficulties committing to marriage and remaining committed to a life-long union. They have not had the model of marriage as a life-long covenant.

So, what will the impact of same-sex marriage be? In countries such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia, where marriage has already been redefined, there has been a dramatic drop in the marriage rate and the birth rate. This may reflect society's changing attitudes towards marriage or it may point to a more fundamental shift. If marriage is no longer about a man and a woman forming a new family with the hope of raising children, young people do not get married and do not have children.

In the meantime, all the changes in marriage have been felt in the churches. It is clergy who are often the ones to counsel couples in all phases of marriage and family breakdown. They help pick up the pieces of broken lives and broken hearts. And church often provides the supportive community for children who are emotionally scarred by family breakdown.

While people might expect that church attendees will have a lower divorce rate, and those who attend church regularly do have a higher commitment to marriage and family, the church is the refuge for those who are broken and emotionally scarred. No one has to tell clergy that messing with marriage messes people's lives.

At this point, we do not know what the impact of the redefinition of marriage will be on the family. Will children grow up with gender confusion? Will the children of same-sex parents have difficulty in heterosexual marriages? There is simply not sufficient evidence.

Already, a lesbian couple has registered for a Christian marriage enrichment course. This leads one to believe that same-sex couples will be looking for the same kinds of supports for their relationships and families as heterosexual couples. Christian groups are most often the ones who run marriage support and enrichment programs, so it is only natural that same-sex couples will register for these.

This will cause some churches and marriage enrichment programs consternation. Many couples who attend marriage enrichment programs are from very traditional marriages and religious backgrounds. For them, having a same-sex couple participate in the course will be disconcerting. And this is at a program that is meant to be helping them.

While the Supreme Court of Canada has said that clergy and churches cannot be compelled to participate in solemnizing same-sex marriages, this does not answer many of the issues that the redefinition of marriage raises. Churches have a moral obligation to minister, and that includes ministry to everyone. But that does not answer very many questions about what form that ministry takes.

What is the future of the family in Canada? What will it look like in five, 10 or 20 years? The last few decades have seen a dramatic change in the family, with rising divorce rates, rising incidence of common-law relationships and, most recently, a change in the legal definition of marriage. In all of that, the majority of children in Canada are still raised by their two biological parents in intact families. But will this change at some point?

Canadian society pays a huge price for family breakdown. The couple and the children experience the momentous impact of the breakdown, it affects more than just the family itself.

The church is one of the places people turn when they are suffering and broken from family breakdown. Churches have been the source for counselling, healing and community support for countless families. Churches will need to prepare to minister as marriage continues to evolve in ways that cause more brokenness and heartbreak.

Most of all, the Church must uphold marriage as being a covenant before God. We must not only teach this truth to our young people but also be prepared to support and encourage marriage in our congregations for better or for worse.